Your last sentence with its request caught me unawares since I'm not an historian. Of course I recognize the importance of historical questions &, specifically, attempts to understand what was in the minds of people of antiquity as they tried to figure things out but that's not my primary focus or expertise. Historians of science would be able to give better & more up to date guidance on "ancient science." I would just note that most general histories of science will start with antiquity - e.g., David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science (U. of Chicago, 1992), Different authors will, however, differ in how much attention they give simply to the results of ancient science in comparison with attempts to understand how people of antiquity actually thought about these matters. & our modern category of "science" can't be disentangled in antiquity from philosophy, theology & often folklore so it's not a straightforward task. That's even more the case with "ancient theology." One could, e.g., look at volumes with titles like Old Testament Theology (e.g., the 2 volumes of von Rad's work by that name) but while these do try to see what the writers of the OT were thinking of, they are also looking at the OT as a whole & trying to make sense of it from a present-day standpoint. That becomes very explicit in something like Brevard Childs Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. The best thing I can suggest for the theology of the writers of Genesis would be to look at a good critical commentary on Genesis - again von Rad or Westermann's Genesis 1-11 and follow along as they try to sort out the "ancient theology", "ancient science" &c. But of course a lot depends on what commentary you use, which is why I advised a "critical" one. While a pre-critical commentary on Gen.1-3 may have a good deal of value for some purposes, it will cause more problems than it solves when it comes to trying to distinguish the theology from the history, science &c precisely because of the conflation that Denis talks about.